Proposition 52K0455

Proposition de résolution relative à la limitation du changement climatique mondial à deux degrés Celsius, à la préparation de la Conférence de Bali sur le changement climatique et ses suites.

General information ¶

Author

Groen Tinne Van der Straeten

Submission date

Nov. 28, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Bali climate change environmental protection resolution of parliament reduction of gas emissions

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo PS | SP LDD

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 29, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

J'ai plusieurs orateurs inscrits: Ms. M. M. Mayeur, Mrs. Muylle, Mrs. De Bont, M. Henry, Mrs Van der Straeten.

Are you still registered in the first round? Mrs Detiège is.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Committee on Public Health, Environment and Social Renewal dedicated the meetings of 13, 20 and 27 November to the preparation and approval of a proposal for a resolution on the Bali Climate Summit.

First the procedure. On 6 November 2007, in accordance with Rule 76 of the Rules of Procedure, the Conference of Presidents instructed the committee to conduct a discussion dedicated to the preparations for the Bali Climate Conference and to report on it in the plenary session.

The committee based on a draft text, based on the resolution adopted by the European Parliament's Interim Climate Committee on 22 October 2007, which you can find in the report on the banks and delivered to the members of the committee on 13 November. Several amendments were submitted. During the meeting of 20 November, unanimous decision was taken on the draft text, and more specifically on Article 5bis which was inserted to seek the opinion of the northern governments. During the discussion, several members of the committee believed that it was important to reach consensus on such a text. There were other members who believed that a consensus could also be reached through a vote.

Given that in particular Articles 5 and 5bis of the resolution gave rise to discussion, the committee agreed to begin with those Articles. During the meeting of 27 November, it was then determined that the opinion of the northern governments was not present. A number of members submitted an amendment to replace the entire text of the resolution; that amendment was approved with 9 against 4 and 2 abstentions, until then the procedure.

Before we began our meetings, Mr. Geert Fremout gave a presentation. He is a climate expert at the FOD Public Health. He gave an explanation of the state of affairs regarding climate policy and what is at stake in Bali. Mr. Fremout pointed out in his introduction the reports of the IPCC that we all know. He explained two points there. First, due to a 2°C increase in global temperature, the sea level will rise alarmingly. Second, in developing countries, agriculture will be adversely affected and 20 to 30% of species will disappear.

Mr. Fremout also pointed out that there are other studies that show that it will not be easy to stabilize the temperature rise and that, in order to mitigate climate change, we must evolve to a CO2 concentration of 450 parts per million, or vice versa in percentage, to a reduction of emissions by 2020 by 25 to 40% and by 2050 by 80 to 90%.

Mr. Fremout has also stopped on the current climate treaties. There is the framework treaty that actually affects all countries and the Kyoto Protocol, which primarily deals with the efforts of the industrialized countries. He pointed out that now in 2007 it is time to start discussions on the post-2012 scheme, as the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012, and that it is intended or intended to be the challenge to reach an integrated treaty, an integrated climate arrangement that integrates the Kyoto Protocol with the industrialized countries and the Framework Agreement.

He also commented on two important aspects. The first aspect is the mitigation or restriction. Secondly, since some effects of climate change can be felt anyway, another aspect of climate management must ⁇ be related to the adaptation policy or adaptation policy.

Regarding the means of action, Mr. Fremout pointed out the importance of financing, which is essential, but also on climate policy itself. It is important that the industrialized countries take action. Now is the time for all countries to come on board. Industrialized countries have a key role to play.

He also points out that the reduction potential of different countries also depends on specific national circumstances. Therefore, accurate studies are needed to determine the determination of the reduction potential per country.

Before the Bali Conference, the European Union has set ambitious targets, still according to Mr Fremout, in particular that concrete results must be achieved by the end of 2009. The adjustment policy must have a general plan. There should be more financial resources.

During an informal interministerial summit held in Bogor, it was decided to focus the discussions of the Bali conference specifically on two strength lines: first, emission limitations; second, adaptation policy. In the long run, other issues, such as technologies, financing and investments, should also be addressed.

It is the European Union that calls for global and integrated action. Especially developing countries point out the need for incentives. Especially India, China, the United States and Saudi Arabia offer against that position.

After that, the committee went on to discuss the draft text of the resolution. I will clearly outline the discussion. A text was adopted in the temporary committee on climate change of the European Parliament.

That text was pushed forward by the Green Group as a basic text to work with, with a major amendment. The Greens had proposed to include an article in the text of the European Parliament. That article meant that Belgium would also undertake to include in Belgium itself an ambitious reduction of emissions, in particular 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.

This part of the text has been discussed in the committee. There were two directions. A minority of the Greens and the socialist family found it important to take leadership and include such a provision in the text. A majority stretch of the orange-blue parties found that much too early and thought that we could not focus on it now. The only thing we could do was support the European goal. On that particular point, the Councils were asked for advice, but the time was far too short to reach a consensus.

At the third meeting, several amendments were submitted by the orange-blue parties. First, there was an amendment by CD&V-N-VA aimed at replacing that article, with a reference to the European objectives. The meeting was suspended for one hour and, after the resumption, a vote on Article 5bis was passed. The first vote was on Mrs. Muylle’s amendment, thus only on the European objectives. That amendment was adopted.

Subsequently, an amendment was submitted by the orange-blue parties aiming to replace the entire European resolution text. That amendment was adopted. It reads as follows: "The House of Representatives agrees with the conclusions of the Coordination Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Effects of 26 November 2007 in which the federal government and the northern governments were represented and reached an agreement and give a clear mandate to the representation of Belgium at the Climate Conference in Bali."

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my personal statement for a later moment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mrs. Van der Straeten for the report. She has done this excellently.

I give a nuance. The amendment submitted for the suspension was co-submitted by MR, Open Vld and the CDH. So it was not just submitted by CD&V. It was even proposed by colleagues from the CDH.

That is correct. It was a forgetfulness of me.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the Conference of Presidents commissioned the Committee on Public Health to work on the preparation of the position that our Parliament would take in support of our representatives, ministers and parliamentarians at the conference to be held in Bali from 3 to 14 December next year, organized by the United Nations and following the Kyoto Summit.

The interest of this debate was to try to position our country in an important European policy, though, but which is only the addition of the positions of the Member States.

The Portuguese Presidency aims to strengthen the driving role of the European Union as a model in energy and sustainable development. We are in favor of this goal, but each country must define its individual position in this international concert.

The objective is to support the European Union in achieving that major polluting countries, in particular the United States, make binding and ambitious commitments to reduce CO2 production, but also to examine, with other major polluting producers, how to reconcile their indispensable economic development with sustainable development.

In the face of such a problem, it is obviously out of question for us that the ambitions of Belgium are less large than those that Europe wants to set itself.

The issue of the mission that was entrusted to the Public Health Commission was all the more meaningful that Belgium does not, for now, have a federal government capable of making decisions that involve its future. In this context, Parliament could take this initiative.

However, the Parliament, in this case the Public Health Committee, was removed this week from this prerogative to propose important guidelines for our country.

Indeed, for about three weeks, the groups PS, sp.a, and Ecolo-Groen!, who seriously participated in this debate, including interventions from other groups, wanted to build a position. We thought the work was done seriously. What has happened? First, CD&V filed an amendment announcing a position on behalf of the blue orange aimed at reducing that ambition we wanted for our country.

Then we saw the simple confiscation of the debate by returning a text to a working group of officials who, if they do their work very well, are not less deprived of any political power and are not able to guide the policies.

What did we propose? To set the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 30% by 2020 and to 60 or 80% by 2050. There is urgency. The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that in the absence of measures by 2100, the average temperature will rise by more than 6 degrees Celsius, resulting in a sea level rise of 59 centimeters and submerging 30% of coastal areas. This should interest a number of people in this assembly. In any case, this should be of interest to citizens who live near these coastal areas.

But not ! The CD&V has filed an amendment, which it calls a majority amendment (blue orange), reducing this goal to a 20% reduction of our greenhouse gas production by 2020. This goal is small and largely lower than that of our main economic partners. Just judge it, Mr. Minister. France and its President, Mr. Sarkozy, a model for you, I think, proposes a 30% reduction by 2020. The Netherlands: 30 percent Germany is 40 percent.

It is obviously quite ridiculous that Belgium offers 20%. It is “can do better”; well, no!

I wonder what has changed in five years. The CDH program, which I had read with interest, presented points that seemed to me very positive and could have been realized. For example, and I quote on page 130: “CDH 2007 Program – Designation within the federal government of a Deputy Prime Minister in charge of climate or sustainable development” and “Reducing by 30%, by 2020, our CO2 emissions”.

What happened in five months? You have signed an amendment that reduces this figure to 20%. Something happened, but what? On page 131: "30% in 2020 and 80% in 2050". It looks furiously similar to what we were proposing.

That you find yourself in difficulty solving the institutional problems of the country, either! That you have no answer to the problems that citizens face, given the rising cost of living and that you are not able to bring it, we understand that it is difficult. We have answers and we are ready to discuss them. But that you are so backward on the major international problems, where we expect a volunteerist position of our country, frankly, it is worrying!

In fact, you had announced a great agreement on sustainable development, one of the few agreements in the blue orange. I thought I could hear Mr. Wathelet or others expose us a great ambitious project. No: 20%, while Sarkozy, Germany – she should inspire you – offer 40%.

In short, this indicates that the blue orange – not yet there – has already gone badly. The position of our country will be in regression compared to our main European partners. It will not advance the debate on such a crucial topic as climate and sustainable development. This is a period of political regression for our country. That is regrettable!

I really invite the parties that have committed themselves before the voters to take voluntary positions, to revise their position today, to express us another point of view – Mr. Wathelet – to join our amendment that has been deposited on this subject and to vote it courageously because it allows our country to be at the forefront in this matter.

From 3 to 14 December, Bali will be a very pleasant setting for the United Nations Climate Conference. It will be crucial negotiations that sign a post-2012 agreement. Kyoto was a first step in reducing global emissions. During the Bali Climate Summit, the process must be started to timely set out a follow-up path. In order to ensure compliance with the first agreement, this new agreement must be on the negotiating table by the end of 2009. We are therefore on the eve of what will be an extremely important turning point in the history of global environmental policy, an incredible challenge.

Climate change is a global issue in which industrialized countries must take the lead. It is therefore essential that Belgium, as the driving force behind international climate negotiations in the EU framework, strives for an integrated and comprehensive framework, with a shared vision for achieving the goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. Without an integrated approach, the ultimate goal cannot be achieved.

With confidence I attended the discussions in the Committee on the Environment on the present draft resolution. The intention was that our fellow parliamentarians, the ladies Avontroodt and Van der Straeten, could go to the conference with a fair and ambitious project and so – yet important – represent the Belgian Parliament. A well-discussed, elaborated and carried out by the members of the committee.

To my surprise, the ambition of the orange-blue coalition – I suppose still in formation – and that of CD&V in particular is significantly lower than that of purple. The amendment to Recommendation 5bis talked about book parts. The original resolution discusses the self-imposed targets for Belgium to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Compared to 1990 emissions, emissions should normally be reduced by 30% by 2020. 30% is also the European target. However, in its amendment, CD&V wanted to limit the target to only 20%. What do I decide after the long discussions?

After three weeks of consultations, it turns out that the orange-blue majority has failed to reach a well-founded resolution. Even worse, the majority has shown that they don’t even have a vision on this subject, because there will be no resolution from Parliament.

In order to hide the disagreement that has been occurring for months between the orange-blue majority, it was then decided at the run-up to submit an amendment, a very ambitious amendment from our Parliament. It means that, I quote literally, “the Chamber agrees with the conclusions of the Coordination Working Group on the Greenhouse Gas Effect of 26 November 2007.” The reference to the report of the working group, which was reviewed and approved by the representatives of the various ministers, is indeed the basis for determining the Belgian position. For the most part, there is consensus on this text, which provides a balanced and solid mandate for ministers Tobback and Huytebroeck during the Bali negotiation process.

In the same amendment, however, orange-blue also gives a clear mandate to colleagues Avontroodt and Van der Straeten to represent Belgium at the climate conference in Bali. What is the specific vision of the people’s representatives? What is the added value of our Parliament in all this debate and negotiation process? What clear message are we sending? I have a very strong confidence in our ministers, but the absence of a resolution further reinforces the perception that Parliament cannot speak with one voice, at a yet very important turning point in climate negotiations.

For the credibility of Belgium, it is essential that the necessary positive signals can be sent and the necessary accents can be placed within the contours of the European position. It is essential that all components of the process are integrated in a comprehensive agreement on the so-called Bali roadmap. Belgium should also be able to provide the necessary instruments, in the broad sense of the word, to bring the climate negotiations to a successful conclusion. Here too the time is urgent.

Apparently, Bush has found an ally in his struggle against global cooling. Congratulations to Orange Blue!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, one would not say it, but the amendment is, as outlined in the good report of Mrs. Van der Straeten, the result of three weeks of consultation in the Committee on Public Health.

A European Union invitation to the national parliaments to formulate their recommendations at the international environmental conference in Bali, of course, the Parliament could not simply abandon. We found it important that we take our responsibilities, even under time pressure and in the absence of a federal government.

Our colleague from Green!, Mrs. Van der Straeten, did not abstain this time. Together with her friends from Ecolo, she drafted a basic text with the European resolution as its starting text.

I must acknowledge that the proposed basic text contained many positive points and many good intentions to jointly address the global, adverse effects of an accelerated global warming.

The emphasis was placed on the need for a global and integrated approach to the greenhouse effect. It also called for the inclusion of emissions from air and sea transport in international commitments.

The text also emphasized the need for a broad international consensus on the long-term objectives. Unfortunately, there was no talk about the need for a broad, scientific consensus on the extent to which man is co-responsible for the cause of global warming. That consensus still does not exist. However, I believe that the aforementioned point also deserves our attention, before we move to measures that could be detrimental not only to our lower-income class but also to key industrial sectors and smaller enterprises, which already find it difficult to keep their head above water.

Do not misunderstand me. You should not laugh at it. With my words, I absolutely do not mean that we can just sit down, that we can simply continue to pollute our air and that we can simply continue to waste our energy. There are enough reasons not to do that. Therefore, the Flemish Interest also wanted to seriously participate in the discussion in the committee.

The discussion was actually about one point, namely the choice between pursuing ambitious goals and pursuing realistic goals.

The underlying question was actually: Should we join the panic waves of Al Gore? Should Belgium, which due to its density of population and its high concentration of energy-intensive industries – including the high concentration of energy in the intensive chemical industry in the port area of Antwerp – and due to this very specific situation, make more efforts than what Europe requires of us? Or we can be realistic enough to realize that there are limitations to both the technical and financial capabilities of our companies, many of which have already made a huge effort in the past to both increase their energy efficiency and limit their exhausts.

If our companies are forced to move abroad as a result of the Belgian ambitious targets, we will as a result lose jobs but not CO2, on the contrary. If our companies are to close, they will also no longer be able to contribute to the necessary innovation and technology, which, however, will largely have to come from a modern chemical industry in collaboration with a forward-looking energy sector. Just look at the fantastic positive projects related to sustainable development in our northern neighbors. This was bitterly little taken into account in the proposed resolution. There has been no consensus on this over the past few weeks.

The amendments remained far apart, until eventually the new majority came to the threshold. I am talking about a new majority. As far as I know, it has not been so far, but it is true that something like a new majority slowly came around in the Committee for Public Health. She came this time for the pins with a ghost amendment, not a ghost note, but a ghost amendment quid old resolution.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, even worse, this time the ghost note is a blank cheque from the Parliament to the governments, to the federal government and to the regional governments. A blanco cheque from the legislative power to the executive power. I think there will be few of us who have already faced the conclusion of the Greenhouse Gas Coordination Working Group of the Interministerial Conference of 26 November 2007.

We would definitely want to go to Bali with a Belgian resolution. How far must our democracy go to keep the appearance high? The resolution discussed here today is unworthy of a parliament. This resolution simply has no meaning. The Flemish Interest will not play this game and we will therefore abstain today if there is a vote on this resolution.

Mevrouw De Bont, dat was your maidenspeech in this public meeting. (The Applause)

We live in an ecosystem that is almost four billion years old and that is important to preserve.

More than a decade ago, most countries joined an international treaty: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in order to start considering what could be done to reduce global warming and cope with any inevitable temperature rise.

In 1997, governments agreed to make an addition to this treaty called the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005 and, since 1988, an intergovernmental group – given the noise that Ecolo makes, I suppose it doesn’t interest them – on climate change reviews scientific research and provides governments with summaries and advice on climate issues.

Unlike the MR group, my group is now complete to listen to you. This will help you more, I think.

Mr Flahaux, I reassure you: there are as many members of the MR group who listen to you as there are members of Ecolo in Parliament.

At the Kyoto Conference, we pledged to protect our ecosystem by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

As the Bali conference begins on December 3 and will aim to reorient the Kyoto objectives, Parliament has addressed the issue.

Belgium relies on Europe and Europe, represented by the European Commission, to defend an ambitious and above all realistic environmental policy on a global scale. The real issue of this conference will be whether we will be able to get countries such as China and the US into a cycle of reducing greenhouse gas emissions because, as we know, these greenhouse gases do not stop at the borders, whether they are current or desired by some extremists.

In anticipation of the Bali conference, the MR supported a clear and firm position in the Public Health and Environment Committee:

Improve the energy efficiency of buildings by 20%;

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% by 2020, or even 30% if an international agreement is reached;

20% share of renewable energy.

It was about proposing a realistic numerical goal and not an economically unsustainable idealistic proposition. In this regard, the greenhouse gas reduction figures already obtained show that, for some countries, there is a long way to the lip cut. In this regard, I would like to highlight the hypocrisy of some.

Of course, Belgium must continue to be an effective driver in the establishment of an ambitious international environmental policy and it is clear that it must push and will push the European Union to adopt the 30% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected by the Socialist and Ecologist families. Therefore, in search of consensus, we supported a new initiative. This initiative was aimed at expressing our support for the position adopted by the federal government and the three regional governments, some of them with ecologist participation, for the Bali conference. It seemed crucial to engage Belgium, with the support of the Regions, in these environmental matters.

I would like to remind you of the functioning of our federal state with regard to...

Mr Flahaux, there is no position of the regional governments. This is a working group of officials who have not finished working; I know that their meeting will resume at 4 p.m. this afternoon. Therefore, you have made us vote on an amendment that will be linked to a working group document but which does not commit governments. I said it: I am very happy that these officials work and I have no doubts about the quality of their work. I would like to admit, however, that the amendment you have proposed to us is a little special!

What is even more important is the position of Mr. Mayeur since in the Committee on Public Health and the Environment, he told us, and this was done, that the Parliament did not have to take a position since it was Minister Tobback who would represent Belgium and that he gave him total confidence. And now Mr. Mayeur comes to teach us lessons of parliamentarism!

It is not accurate. I understand that you have difficulty understanding my position. I actually said that I had full confidence in mr. and Tobback.

Therefore, it is not necessary to set numbers.

On that point! But I said that for the future, we could take a more voluntary stance as Parliament: 30% in 2020...

You offered 20%, you are slightly below our main business partners.

I understand that you didn’t quite grasp it, but that’s exactly what I said.

When you say you understand, what do you mean?

I will take a painting and a cradle.

Do you think we are weak?

I would not allow it!

Mr Flahaux, Mrs Gerkens has asked for the floor.

Mr Flahaux, I think we need to be consistent in the words. There are indeed working groups and there are meetings between federal and federal entities; in the same way, there are working groups and meetings at European level. It is a fact. We are in a parliament, even if there is no government.

There is a government, Mrs.

I mean, there is no new government.

The work went as follows: as Parliament, we do not want to take a position and make clear and precise requests to a government that will have to represent us in Bali.

I would like you to activate this difference. In the resolution and this famous article 5bis, which posed a problem to us, the ambition was to demand that Belgium engage at the federal level knowing that the federated entities are responsible for the concretization, whether it be the Brussels Region, the Walloon Region or the Flemish Region. This does not prevent parliamentarians from formulating ambitious goals for a government.

You refused this by saying that you were going to ask for the result of the working group that represents governments in the negotiations.

Thus, one has given up on assuming his role as a parliamentary who can push and encourage governments.

I do not think, Mrs. Gerkens, since precisely the amendment that was voted by the four groups of the blue orange contained clear and precise figures. There should also be no hypocritical attitude. Here is the report...

You refused to continue working on the text! Stop saying that we have not set an ambitious goal!

I have here the report which is the annual greenhouse gas inventory 1990-2005 of the European Community as well as the 2007 inventory report that you know. In particular, it is stressed that Belgium was a quite correct student while Spain, dear to the socialist group, is "the country in which greenhouse gas emissions increased the most between 2004 and 2005. In Spain, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions is 3.6% or 15.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, increasing mainly due to centralized electricity production and urban heating.

Mr. Flahaux, you speak of hypocrisy but if you look at the proposed text, you can read that "the Chamber adheres to the conclusions of 26 November 2007 of the coordination group". Today, you are at the tribune and I challenge you to tell us what are the conclusions of the 26 November 2007 Working Group. I listen to you...

I am surprised that you are asking me the question since for the Brussels government, it is your own minister who is part of this working group.

Mr Flahaux, do not divert the debate. I challenge you, since it is in your text, to cite the conclusions of 26 November.

Give a little call to Ms. Huytebroeck, she will answer you!

First answer my question: what is in the conclusions of 26 November? November 26 was last Monday. What do you know about the conclusions of November 26? I will answer your question later.

We have appointed a rapporteur for this committee and if it does its job well, and it does it correctly, it will give you the answer.

And you answer. You cannot answer: You are not able to answer. This text does not mean anything.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to react because I hear that the sp.a has taken a hypocritical stance in this. I can only state that the method I saw in the committee was actually a very strange method. Why Why ? It is now 15.57 am I see on the clock. We are going to vote on a resolution and the working group is still underway. I have a lot of confidence in my minister, Minister Tobback, but it is very illogical that that working group is still working at this moment and that we are already going to vote. It is ⁇ that even amendments would be submitted to a text that we have not yet finalised. I have never experienced that. Sorry, this is not normal.

Mr. Speaker, would it be possible, before the vote, to distribute to the members the text of 26 November containing the conclusions of the Coordination Group? We will know exactly what we are voting for.

Mr. Mayeur, I am not the rapporteur of the commission.

Neither is me! I spoke to the President, Mr. Flahaux! Turn back gently: there is someone behind you!

We must stop humiliating people. It’s not because you lost the elections that you have to humiliate people! (That is brouhaha!)

So here here!

Mr. Mayeur, you will probably be interested to know that, for a year, Spain and its socialist government hold the presidency of the European Union and, for a year, there is a progression in greenhouse gases. This was not the case in the previous presidency.

It should also be noted that the European Commissioner in charge of the matter has called on many Member States to redouble their efforts. In fact, the statistics in the report do not include the aviation sector that has experienced strong growth in recent years, and whose emissions at high altitude are more harmful than those at ground level.

The European Commission must therefore, I quote it, "...adopt a whole set of measures in the energy sector too, to develop renewable energies and to limit emissions from new cars."

Hopefully I learned something from you, Mr. Mayeur. Now let me continue my speech.

It seems therefore crucial to engage Belgium, with the support of the Regions, in these environmental matters. I would like to recall the functioning of our State with regard to environmental policies. It is the responsibility of the Regions to apply the concerted emission standards and that is why the four parties have submitted this amendment. It is therefore their responsibility to comply with the objectives negotiated by the European Commission at international conferences. When it comes to giving Belgium a position, it is therefore vital to hear the entities that will be responsible on the ground. And I also know that it is a certain M. The mayor who requested it.

That is why we present today this text that reflects the consensus reached by the federal government and the Regions. Beyond the Bali conference, Belgium will need to have an ambitious plan, not only in terms of reducing greenhouse gases but also in terms of future environmental challenges.

The Reform Movement will support the inclusion of the concept of sustainability in all policies: promote the development of renewable energies, encourage industry to pursue the energy savings committed, boost energy efficiency of buildings to ⁇ passive homes, adopt sustainable mobility plans, encourage mild travel modes, continue the development of biofuels, combat deforestation, especially in Central Africa and Latin America, and encourage green fuels in particular.

It is therefore with conviction that the MR group will support the resolution.

First, I give the floor to Mrs. Van der Straeten on Mr. Mayeur’s punctual question. It is a question of clarification of the text.

Mr. Flahaux asked me a question.

Mr Mayeur too. He referred to the text of the working group.

Mr Flahaux asked me to answer my colleague Nollet if he wanted to have a report of the meeting of 26 November. It is obvious that I can only report on what happened in the committee. I can communicate what happened there, who positioned himself in what way and what the conclusion was. I cannot report on a meeting that I was not aware of and at which I was not present.

I would like to clarify one point with Mr. by Flahaux. The submitted resolution is amended by the Social-Christian and Liberal parties; they ask for confidence in following the conclusions of the Working Group of 26 November. This working group is meeting today; therefore the conclusions of the work may be different.

If the conclusions change, we will face a problem unless the potential majority submits an amendment stipulating that the conclusions, whatever they may be, will be followed from now on at the Bali meeting. Formulating things this way means anything. If we have clear and precise ambitions, we note these clear and precise ambitions.

Is the text of the working group referred to available?

The text is therefore apparently part of the report.

Is the text available or not?

Mr. Speaker, in order to create clarity, Mrs. Detiège said that it was intended to speak with one voice.

There is one person in this hemisphere entitled to speak with one voice and that is Bruno Tobback. After all, he will represent our country and he knows exactly what mandate he has.

The [...]

Mr. Mayeur, you know as well as I do that we should not say that.

The [...]

That is a decision of the Conference of Voorzitters. Who had to be indicated, was indicated. It has nothing to do with you. This has nothing to do with.

Mr. Tobback is mandated to speak on behalf of our country. So it is Mr. Tobback who has exactly the text in his valises.

Then I wonder why we have been together for three weeks.

Again, I am fully convinced that our Minister will do a good job. He has proven this in the past too. What is the added value of the members of parliament here? Why have we met for three weeks to decide that we agree with the findings of the working group that is still underway? So be serious.

Who will intervene in this procedural debate? No one ? Then we close it.

In the meantime, I will see if we can distribute the text in time for the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a call, because here are apparently elite members who have the text and others who get the recommendations to call their ministers, while I have nothing at all, not even a minister to call.

I will let it check.

Let that text copy, whoever may have it, and share it around.

That is the intention, yes. Does anyone want to intervene in the procedure?

Mr. Speaker, this text is not in the report; if it exists, we must be able to dispose of it.

We will distribute it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I think history has some of its rights, and what we now experience in Bali – I think some members are far greater specialists in the matter than others – is exactly the same procedure that was initiated at the time in Berlin before the Kyoto Protocol was put on the agenda. It is exactly the same procedure that is currently taking place in Bali.

The chairwoman of our committee asked the committee with the best intentions and with a very large volunteerism whether we could not prepare the Bali Climate Conference with a common text. This is exactly what was stated in the first meeting. By the way, Mrs. Detiège, you repeated it afterwards and all members of the committee agreed to try it. Unfortunately, the discussion did not take place at the Bali Climate Conference. What is there on the agenda? This is neither more nor less than drawing up a common march plan around a number of themes. These goals can be achieved by anyone on the Internet. These objectives are very public. I want to repeat them for a moment and then I leave it to you to decide whether all the interventions that have been made so far have anything to do with those goals.

The first goal would be that there would be a shared vision regarding the ultimate goals. This is not about standards, reductions or percentages. It cannot be formulated more generally. A second goal is only that greater, absolute emission reductions should be achieved for all developed countries.

The third point is the fair and effective contribution of developing countries. This is stated in public documents, but I thought it was time for it to be made clear for a while.

Fourth is the expansion of the carbon market. Fifth, there is the technology, the transfer of technology and – very importantly – the financing of that transfer of technology. Sixth, greater efforts should be made to adapt to climate change. Seventh, we must address the problem of emissions from international transport, aviation and shipping, and eighth, we must address the increase in emissions due to deforestation, a problem that we must address by promoting forestry. This includes both financial flows and investments as a transversal theme. Nothing less, but nothing more than that is the goal.

We are actually put on the wrong foot by going to the content. We all have a very ambitious climate and sustainability programme, with which we went to the elections, but ultimately the agenda must be that we reach an integrated climate management after 2012.

That was the question we faced in the committee. Mrs. Speaker, I do not deny that the committee has agreed to take as the basic text the text that was distilled from the European Parliament in extremis. It is the merit of many political groups, as well as of Mrs. Muylle, to immediately discuss Article 5bis and to determine whether the consensus was achievable or not. Very soon, Mrs. Muylle, it turned out that there could be no consensus on the amendment you had submitted.

It then required some discussion before we could clear that difference in approach. Per ⁇ everything has eventually been sent into procedural issues, which, unfortunately, has not brought to the surface the ultimate, effective goals of the Baltic Climate Conference.

Mr. Speaker, we can also present our party program and say how ambitious it was. However, we will not do that. In fact, it was the agreement to seek consensus, so to look in Parliament with a consensus resolution over the shoulders of our Minister Tobback to see if he would have taken that with him. This has not succeeded. We regret that; that is a pity.

Especially, it is a pity that the real goals of the climate conference were not actually put on the agenda. We have lost very much time. By the way, I understood that simultaneously a ⁇ engaging and interesting hearing in the Committee on Business took place, while we eventually sat down to discuss procedures.

I think it’s a missed opportunity to take this issue seriously. This is definitely not an accusation. We agreed with the intention to seek consensus and to prepare a good resolution. We also agreed to Mr. Mayeur’s proposal to seek the advice of the regions, which I think was a fair question, but of course somewhat unrealistic, given the timing of the Bali conference. We cannot be challenged by the Belgian Parliament, because we have not yet received that advice, which would be a little difficult.

We cannot stand on one leg. We cannot say that we find it important to know the advice of the Regions in our country and on the contrary say that we will then overrule that advice ourselves. The lion’s share of the measures will nevertheless be implemented in cooperation with the regions, with the regions. The highlight of all this is that a consensus has been reached on this or that in the interministerial conference. Will we now here, without hearings, without numbers, without evaluation, just shake a Belgian resolution out of our sleeve? Well, I am very happy and very humbly to admit that we didn’t get it done in two days or in a few hours. We have therefore, balanced and with common sense, decided to join the consultation and the consensus, which is not so easy to reach, but which has been achieved, note bene with the participation of most parties in Parliament.

I regret that it took a while before the light appeared and before the clarity came. I think we should put the program of the post-2012 global climate regime on our agenda with very great serenity, with expertise and with very great seriousness, because the effective reduction rates will not be determined until the end of next year.

Ms. Gerkens has asked for the word.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I agree with Mrs. Avontroodt’s view on the waste of time in our committee’s work on procedures.

On the other hand, I disagree when she claims that we have obtained a consensus text, hardly achieved. The submitted text is not a consensus text. This is the result of a vote by a majority of the members of the committee. We have no problem being beaten.

The difficulty we have known in the committee – and I still cannot understand it – is that we would have wanted to ⁇ the ideal, that is, to reach a consensus in the committee. Nevertheless, one article posed so many problems that it was obvious that there would be no consensus on this point. That is why I proposed a vote, so that I can move forward on the other articles.

From that moment – and I still cannot understand why – it had become impossible for liberals and social-Christian members to see a text marked by a vote on the article concerning Belgium’s obligations come out of the committee. Nevertheless, the result would have been the same as today: a text could eventually have been adopted with a whole series of very precise recommendations, with some points accepted, others not. We would have had a final text, the result of democratic work. This is what ultimately happened. We were beaten but I deeply regret that there was no way to get you to agree to vote on articles and then continue to work. Here, we voted, and then you refused to continue.

Do you want to react?

I want to wait for what Mrs. Van der Straeten has to say.

Mrs Avontroodt, you have very clearly listed the eight building blocks that are indeed the principles and goals for the Bali Conference. If it were so simple, we ⁇ ’t have to start the discussion. In all countries, even in the preparation of the European position and also in the European Parliament, there has been a discussion of how to fill those building blocks. When it comes to a fair and effective engagement of developing countries, what does that mean? When it comes to funding, what does that mean? When it comes to limitation, what does that mean? It is precisely because of these points that the committee has met and discussed this text. It’s not so non-binding and not so easy to just stay stuck with those eight building blocks. It is just about the interpretation. This is what we wanted to ⁇ : what is the position of this Parliament with regard to the interpretation and completion of those different building blocks? The government can have its position, the European Parliament can have its position, everyone can have a position on it. Why not this Parliament? I regret that.

This Parliament may ⁇ have a position, but I do not feel called to play soloslim without certainty about the timeline and without certainty about the European measures. I remember very well the discussion on Article 5bis, in which we referred to the position of the other industrialized European countries. Then it was immediately said that one should not refer to it, that it is only about us.

Well, lady, I don’t feel called to play soloslim. I think that Europe has very clearly connected itself with the other industrialized countries. Mr. Mayeur says that France and Germany have other statements. That’s possible, but I don’t think it’s wrong to send our minister to Bali in a realistic way.

I reiterate the invitation to our President to put the global post-2012 climate regime on the agenda with a real timeline. Then we can work on it transversally, including the other committees. Not only the Committee on Public Health and the Environment, but also the Committee on Entrepreneurship must be involved. Then we will come to a serious text. We will meet at the end of 2009.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in a few days a very important global meeting will take place in Bali to try to provide an answer to what is probably the most enormous challenge that humanity has ever faced: divide CO2 emissions by four by 2050, without leaving anyone on the road. The ability of the international community to respond to this challenge in a peaceful and democratic way will depend on the future of all of us and especially that of our children.

It is therefore in the face of the importance of this issue and its urgency that it has seemed elementary for us that our Parliament positions itself, clearly determines its basic options, shows its solidarity with the European orientations and, above all, determines also for our country the bases of a programme of own action, thus giving a clear signal to the international community, but also to the whole of the economic actors and the Belgian citizens.

And on this point, we obviously do not agree to admit that it is enough to wait and see what Europe will do. Europe is all of us; we build it. The fact that Europe is at the forefront on these issues depends on the different European actors and the different countries to which we belong.

The Conference of Presidents and you, Mr. Speaker, have followed the request since the committee has actually been requested to prepare a report. It is clear that we are very disappointed with its achievement: the commission simply refers to a text that we will only have knowledge of soon!

In our original text, as proposed to the Commission, we had insisted, inspired by the European text, on several points:

- the need for all countries to contribute, with a particular intensity for the industrialised countries, by their own responsibility and by solidarity with developing countries;

- the expected profits of such a social revolution;

- much higher costs even if you are distorted to make decisions;

- the need to reduce energy consumption, increase the share of renewable energy and invest in new technologies and research.

So we were very surprised by the text adopted by the blue orange parties: four lines that commit nothing and refer to a meeting, as explained.

Beyond the incongruity of this alternative text, we regret above all the obvious and dramatic lack of ambition. Obviously, the current blue orange negotiators seem to agree on one point: there is no question of making climate a central point in the next legislature and, above all, there is no question of anticipating anything in relation to the European position. Indeed, just recently we cited the figure of 20%, but I recall that, if we had proposed 30% for Belgium in our resolution, the 20% mentioned are at European level.

We have well understood that the blue orange parties hope to negotiate with Europe a reduction of Belgium’s own targets in such a way that it is as low as possible. This does not seem to us to be at all responsible in relation to the issue of global warming and in relation to its urgency. I wonder even if some parties will not hesitate to come to protest under ⁇ ambitious slogans next December 8 as a climate demonstration is announced in Brussels.

So we have known our country otherwise more ambitious on this issue. At the time of the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, Belgium played a decisive role in its completion. Everyone knew this was just a first step. Kyoto forecasts a 7.5% reduction compared to 1990. We know today that we should target 30% in 2020 and probably 80% in 2050. However, we are all proud to have been the precursors of the Kyoto Protocol.

Bali is Kyoto today, so it is now that you have to be ambitious and courageous! That’s why we proposed 30% for Belgium and not just waiting for a European decision that we would accommodate later.

If we refer to the goals that other countries have set themselves, we can, unfortunately, only confirm Belgium’s lack of ambition. In fact, Germany has already pledged to reduce its emissions by 40% in 2020, Britain has as its official goal a reduction of 26 to 32% in 2020, the Netherlands, 30% as well as Norway, with, in addition, the goal of being carbon neutral by 2050 at the latest (zero emissions).

Nevertheless, the countries that move backwards towards the inevitable technological and energy revolution that we are facing will also be tomorrow the great economic losers of these choices that are made today, but which have been present for a certain number of years.

As an example, there are now in Germany as many jobs in the renewable energy sector as in the automotive industry. I think we could ⁇ inspire ourselves in Belgium. This is why, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the Ecolo-Groen Group! It cannot be satisfied with the text adopted by the Commission. We have prepared several amendments, which have now been distributed, one of which aims to replace the proposed text and the other to add additional articles.

Thank you Mr Henry. This was your maiden speech in the plenary session.

(Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will not talk about the content of the resolution because the cup of the borderless meetings of the Committee on Public Health and the Environment has happily passed me over the last few weeks.

What is so fantastic for me and makes me remember the land of Magritte is the following. Kabouterland Belgium will change the world! We’re going on a trip to Bali but internally we can’t even find an agreement about who can speak, what will be said and what resolution we’re going to bring there.

After all, until now – we still have to vote on that resolution later – we still do not know what we will adopt. We should not only vote on this resolution. There is also an amendment that I as a member of parliament would be ashamed of if I had approved it.

Mr. Speaker, I will read it. I will read that blanco cheque as our colleague just named it. I quote: “The Chamber agrees with the conclusions of the Coordination Working Group on the Greenhouse Gas Effect of 26 November 2007, in which the federal government, the Chancellor...” – that has been quickly added because our future former prime minister also has something to say – “...and the Western Governments have been represented and have come to an agreement and give a clear mandate to the representation of Belgium at the Climate Conference in Bali.”

Mr. Tobback, the big vague is also: are you going or are you not going? Fantastic question ! We can make a price request. Or are you going to send again Mrs. Guidone, the big light of your new climate change party?

In your place, I would not go. I really ⁇ ’t go despite the fantastic exotic beaches of Bali. I would not go. I would be consistent once. Since we do not agree on what we are going to say there, I would be consistent. I would not take the plane. You know what a plane consumes. At the height of Austria, 28,000 liters of kerosene have already disappeared from the tank. So, be consistent for once: join what your great roerganger has said in Le Soir this week, the great Cohn-Bendit, Rode Daniël. I know him from my May 68 period, Red Daniel, and he is still alive.

Red Daniel has shone its light on Belgium and Red Daniel will also be in Bali. He says there in Le Soir – I will quote it, dear friends: “An explosion of Belgium would hardly be a problem for Europe.” “In any case,” as our book picture of 1968 says, “the weight of Belgium in the Union is zero.”

What is the weight in Bali?

What are you worried about staying at home? Cohn-Bendit is, by the way, a sharp observer when he relativizes the dangers of a Belgian explosion. Without the euro, says red Daniel, Belgium would already have exploded. Thanks to the euro, it is hardly a problem, except for the composition of the national football team. A fantastic analysis. What is it about here today? It is about the composition of a team to go to Bali. What we’re going to say here is subjective.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must be honest. A country that is still unable to form a government within half a year will ⁇ not succeed in forcing the biggest polluters to join the mandate of Bali. The question is whether Belgium should be represented at the summit if the government still lags behind the European positions and can not influence countries such as China, India and Russia. A new international climate agreement only makes sense if those countries want to participate. Under the current protocol, they have no obligation to reduce their emissions.

Not only do we like to travel to Bali, we also always like to travel to China, Mrs. Detiège. I will come straight to you. You are too beautiful to be left on the side, Mrs. Now, China claims that it is the rich industrialized countries that need to reduce their CO2 emissions because they are the ones who have ensured that they are the rich industrialized countries that need to reduce their CO2 emissions.

I laughed very kindly, even though you start talking about red dahlia. Red dahlia are beautiful flowers. Secondly, I find it very regrettable that you and your colleagues have not spoken a word in the committee for three weeks.

I said this at the beginning of my speech. Listen to Listen.

If you think it is so important, I think you should speak to the people here a little more modestly. This was said by a red dahlia from the opposition.

We have a very small delegation and we have very little time to waste time. As I see here today, you actually lost three weeks of time in that committee. I see no resolution here, I see nothing here. With five people who do not yet have the right to vote – because you are so democratic that you do not give us the right to vote in this committee – we absolutely do not have time to waste our time as you spent your time there three weeks. You either approved the amendment or did not approve it. It is a shame for a member of parliament. The fact that we should discuss here a resolution that we have not yet adopted is, in itself, of interest to me.

For those of you who are going to gender, I have another good suggestion. We are in Indonesia. There has been a wonderful study by Mr. Bart Muys of the Catholic University of Leuven, among others. Now I have to look at the right side. He said in Wetlands International that by deforestation – listen just, green gurus – of mole forests in Indonesia for oil palm plantations – to replace the kerosene, before that you can still go to gender – not only the biomass of the forest is burned but also the land is drained.

Not only is the biomass of the forest burned, but the land is also drained, thus allowing meter-thick pine layers to slowly but surely mineralize. This has made Indonesia now the largest CO2 emitter after the US and China. Mrs. Detiège, you have work at the store, but you are allowed to travel. I also have something in my hand for the Congoreans. The same scientist states that the deforestation of the Congo tropical forest is a huge source of greenhouse gas. Colleagues, all the madness on a stick, I don’t know what we will do there. We will see what we will do.

Instead of being intensely concerned with who can travel to the exotic beaches and who can’t, instead of this far-from-mine bed show, one would better be concerned with what happens here with the CO2 emissions. Later we will discuss the energy, Electrabel and the price of energy. However, everything depends on each other. CO2 emissions are related to keeping nuclear power plants open. The price of energy is related to keeping the nuclear power plants open. There is absolutely no word on this today. Everyone says that if you shut down the nuclear power plants, the CO2 emissions will increase by at least 20%.

Maybe we can talk about it. We could talk about the price of energy, about the fact that keeping the nuclear power plants open for another 20 years generates 10 to 55 billion euros, about the fact that that energy is offered at 70% of the cost price on the market so that we really have a liberalization of the market and not what the last government has done, namely for the payment of the invoice for the fuel oil for 100 million euros to sell the monopoly to Electrabel.

One really needs to have the debate about market liberalization rather than a far-from-mine bed show. There are four flies in one blow. Then we have supply security, a real market liberalization, a price drop – my gentlemen socialists – and also a very large environmental gain – my gentlemen greens. I wish you a green trip to Bali and hopefully you will return.

Mr. Dedecker, I am surprised by your reasoning: you should be the first interested in global warming and greenhouse gases because I believe you are an elected from West Flanders. If you continue this way, your electoral district will soon disappear!

Mr Flahaux, I am positive and I am a Flaming. We Flamings take on the challenges of the future.

When the water on the coast warms up, I am a happy person. If it gets warmer on the coast, we can open terraces until eleven or twelve o’clock in the evening. If it still improves, the fisheries are saved and we can still catch ink fish in the North Sea.

I would like to start with a quote. "Will the sea level rise by 30 centimeters, or will it rise by 7 meters? There are still people who take these uncertainties to advocate for doing nothing. This is intolerable. We must now take the necessary measures. We must now take our responsibilities.”

These winged words were pronounced by the current and ⁇ the everlasting Prime Minister at the reception on the occasion of King’s Day, on November 15.

Mr. Leterme, who would like to be prime minister but can not yet, said in November 2006 in a campaign in the Nieuwsblad: "Kyoto is not a slide, but an opportunity. Our environmental technology we have in Belgium can be used as an export product.”

The next ten to fifteen years will be crucial when it comes to combating the climate crisis. When it comes to taking real responsibility, it remains earthly silent. Not only in the government, but also, as has already been sufficiently demonstrated, in this Parliament.

Monday begins the climate conference in Bali, which is absolutely crucial. As Ms. Avontroodt said, the real starting point and real intent is that there is an agreement to have a coherent international climate agreement at the latest in 2009 capable of counteracting the effects of the climate crisis after 2012.

That implies that significant reductions are needed: at least 30% by 2020 and at least 50% globally by 2050. That 50% worldwide should be divided by efforts between developing countries and industrialized countries. Industrialized countries have a historical responsibility when it comes to the effects of global warming. Here in the North, the main emissions are realized and the consequences are felt in the South.

Therefore, climate policy is above all a justice policy. It is about justice and it gives a new meaning to the concept of solidarity, not only in the South, but also here. Also in Belgium, it is the people who live in poverty, who live in the worst houses, who pay the highest energy factories and who are the biggest victims of pollution.

If we do nothing, as some colleagues have suggested, it will also cost us a lot of money. British economist Stern has calculated that doing nothing will account for approximately 5 to 20 percent of the global GDP. If we truly effectively pursue an ambitious climate policy, it will cost us 1 percent of the global GDP. It also brings money back in the gap, as it would create thousands of jobs in the sectors of construction, transport and renewable energy, and it would result in lower energy output among people.

The question is: do we do nothing and will we watch how our economy will collapse today or later? No policy, and therefore no expansion of perspectives, is a disaster for the industry’s investment security. I refer to the fact that there is still no new national CO2 allocation plan so far and that companies do not yet know what CO2 quotas they will have from 1 January 2008. I wonder if this is a good governance.

Good governance is not governance. The play time is over, but apparently a lot of colleagues, especially the orange-blue majority, have not heard the bell yet. There has already been enough reference to the fact that the resolution does not offer much. I wonder if this is the commitment of the orange-blue parties to the climate. Is this the commitment of the parties who want to form a government? For me, it is an absolute non-engagement. Is this the way of working of a Christian-Democratic family that highlights solidarity and respect? Is this the method of a liberal family that always advocates for high investment security for the industry? I think, my colleagues, this is a prut work.

Our neighbors, on the other hand, not only speak beautiful words, but also show in practice what those words are worth. It has already been referred to Germany, where Angela Merkel wants a 40% reduction by 2020, to the Netherlands, where Balkenende wants a 30% reduction, and to France, where Sarkozy also wants a 30% reduction. Our neighbors are taking the lead today, while Belgium apparently is doing everything to just mice under it.

Apparently, colleague Dedecker and I have the same image, namely Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who sits in the European Parliament. He claims that our country does not propose anything in the EU. Regarding the past, I disagree with Cohn-Bendit, as it was under the Belgian Presidency that the EU ratified the Kyoto Protocol. It was then the Belgians who negotiated until the last snik so that the EU effectively supported and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Otherwise it would simply not have been there. However, I fear that red Danny will effectively get the right, as far as the future is concerned.

It’s time to call it a day. It is time for us to start our work in a serious way. Mr. Speaker, there are amendments from me, which are also supported by the colleagues of the PS. I think they put the Parliament before a clear choice: will we do something or will we do nothing?

I thank you, mevrouw. Men would not say, but actually is dated your first openbare uiteenzetting namens your fraction. (The Applause)

First of all, it is important to remember what we are talking about. Today we are discussing the international conference in Bali.

A number of organizations – Greenpeace, Inter-environment Wallonia – reminded us of the issues related to this conference. These issues are capital and all the speakers who spoke at this tribune admitted it. Negotiators will need to agree on a roadmap, including a precise timetable and clearly defined discussion topics, so that a Kyoto-bis protocol can be adopted in the coming years.

Belgium will not participate personally in the Bali Conference or in international negotiations, as it will be represented by the European Union, speaking with one voice at the negotiating table through the Portuguese Presidency.

Bali must indeed be our roadmap, the opportunity to join us in this vision 2012-2020, which follows that relating to Kyoto for the period 2008-2012.

As part of this objective, I found it interesting that Parliament adopts a resolution expressing its views, even if it is not directly represented.

As I have already said in a committee, the fundamental challenge of this conference is that the EU manages to bring together in this process countries that have not yet signed into the Kyoto Protocol. It is for this purpose that it has proposed a reduction target, not 20% but 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union has made this strong commitment because it is at the global level that we need to be aware of the climate impacts of CO2 emissions. If we are more around the table, our goal may be more ambitious, which is of course positive.

Should Belgium support the European Union? of course ! Should Belgium set itself ambitious goals? of course ! Should it give itself a quantified target for the period 2012-2020? This question was raised within the framework of Article 5bis.

Let me refer to the very correct statements made by Mr. Mayeur, last week in commission, spoke words that invited us to be attentive. The institutions concerned by these objectives are mainly the Regions.

But the Federal Minister of the Environment still has a number of powers. It must also ⁇ a number of objectives. And you know as I do – we’ve had some debates about this – that a discussion is still going on to determine who should, in the end, assume the responsibilities or seize the opportunities in order to ⁇ the Kyoto objectives in 2012. In fact, when it comes to CO2 emissions, we always talk about charges but there can also be opportunities.

Today, as we are approaching the end of 2007, there is still no agreement on the allocation of burdens or opportunities for the period 2008-2012.

Why Why ? Because it is not obvious! It is not obvious to set a general goal, that of at least 8%, how to distribute them, how much will have to assume the Walloon Region, Brussels and the Flemish Region, but also the federal state. These discussions are so difficult that, even for the period 2008-2012, we have not yet been able to reach an agreement on the sharing of burdens or opportunities.

All this shows how indispensable it is to attract the federated entities, to organize a consultation between them and the federal state in order to determine this ambitious goal for the horizon 2012-2020. It is indispensable! We could have asked for it earlier.

Regions are much more ambitious than what you are proposing today!

I know what the Regions say, and I know most of all that they did not know how to decide for the period 2008-2012. Do not let me tell you...

( ... )

But yes, we must have this ambitious goal and it is together that we must set it. This is what the amendment proposed.

Mr. Mayeur, you are talking about less than 20%. This is not what the amendment says. The amendment speaks of “ambitious objective” and says it must be fixed with the relevant actors at the environmental level, at the economic level, within the framework of European policy.

We should also not mistake objectives.

I want the European Union to ⁇ this goal and I want that we all do it together within the European Union. We have to reach less than 30%. It will be easier to ⁇ this if we all work together, in solidarity with other EU countries. You know, just like me, that today some countries are far above the threshold, notably Spain with 29% more and Greece with 25%.

I hear that you are returning to Europe, but before that, I would like to return to the Regions. What do you think of this? I quote: “The resolution would gain if it was completed. For example, when it comes to industry, it is at the global and sectoral level that CO2 constraints should be defined. For road transport, it is at the European and national level that plans should be drawn up. As for the tertiary and residential sectors, it is at national or regional level, where appropriate, that a dynamic should be implemented.”

The term “national” is repeated three times.

“The resolution would gain to be supplemented by considerations that speak about this,” said Mr. by Benoît Lutgen.

Your colleague of the CDH, Walloon Regional Minister, proposes as a response of the Walloon Region to the Minister-President of the Walloon Region to supplement the resolution – it is always based on the text that has been discussed – with considerations that impose projects at the national level. Why don’t you follow his advice?

When you talk about Spain at the European level, that’s not right! I said it in a bit, but let’s be serious for a moment: Spain must catch up what was not accomplished under the Aznar government, and so is it.

I am not in a majority opposition debate.

What we are interested in is the Belgian ambition in connection with our main economic partners, which are Germany, who says 40%...

And who is less than 25%...

France says 30%, and the Netherlands says 30%. You are just small with your 20%! Even Mr. Lutgen proposes more specific plans for the federal in three subjects. It is unfortunate that you do not support it.

Mr. Wathelet, I would like you to tell us from when you consider a goal to be ambitious. At least we will know.

There is also a contradiction. You say that when it comes to CO2 reduction, many see this as something negative, as a compulsion, but that it can also be an opportunity. Obviously this can be an opportunity both in terms of savings achieved through the reduction of health problems and pollution but also in terms of creating economic activity.

What Germany has done is to decide to set an ambitious target in terms of CO2 reduction, coupled with goals of energy efficiency, business creation, job creation. This cannot be done, ambitious goals cannot be achieved, even if the ultimate goals are not achieved, only by imposing ambitious limits that compel us all, politicians, employers, trade unions, citizens to change our behaviors and to be attentive to the creation of activity.

In your speech and in the resolution you finally submitted, there is nothing ambitious. It is passive, it is passive.

Mrs. Gerkens, Mr. Mayeur, of course, we need to set ourselves ambitious goals. But I don’t want to set these goals for all the Regions when I see the current results. This is the whole discussion in the committee this week. Today, the Walloon Region achieves its target: it is below 9,5%. The Flemish Region is up 2.2%. The Brussels-Capital Region still does not respect it today despite the fact that it was a positive goal. That is why this difficulty arose in the distribution of burdens and opportunities between 2008 and 2012.

That is why we must negotiate with all the Regions at the Belgian level and also at the European level; to know how these different burdens and opportunities will be distributed at the European level, to reach at the European level those 20 and 30%, to ⁇ in each of our Regions the targets set for 2008 to 2012 and that these targets become our opportunities for 2012 to 2020. This is what we must set ourselves as a goal: this is how we can ⁇ an ambitious goal. This is how we can send a credible message and ⁇ the goals we set ourselves, rather than advancing figures without agreement and without concertation with the Regions.

This is not how we work! If you really want to change policies and work on all the behaviors, you need to set yourself a long-term goal and give yourself the means to ⁇ it. All you say is that we must lock ourselves in the possibility of eventually complying with the standards decided by the European Union. This has no sense. This is not how you will succeed.

No, Mrs. Onkelinx It is to set these goals in consultation with those who will do with us this work of reducing greenhouse gases. For the Walloon Region, the target of 9.5% has been reached. In fact, we need to go further by coordinating policies to ⁇ the goals we set ourselves. We must all set these ambitious goals together: this is exactly what we must do and that is what the amendment proposed.

Mr. Mayeur, you say that we set ourselves the 20% target. No to No! We want to fit in the European target, whether it is less 20% or less 30%. This is the challenge of Bali: that the European Union defends this position by less 30% to reach other countries with it. This is the position we must defend. That is why we need to be ambitious.

So what has been discussed and adopted within these working groups that meet today? It is to take into account in Bali these Belgian peculiarities.

Take the various arguments they raised, including the fact that our country ⁇ benefits from a significant expertise in flexibility mechanisms and cases closely affecting Central Africa, such as deforestation, among others. This is why the working group – you will see it in the table at your disposal – wants Belgium to bring to Bali these specifics of the Belgian position: its knowledge of Central Africa and this issue related to deforestation.

The [...]

In addition to the European goals, Mrs. Gerkens, because they will fit into the European goal! I suppose that mr. Tobback or Ms. Huytebroeck will also go to Bali to defend European goals and help the European Union, adding the Belgian specificity, in which Belgium can bring a little more.

Finally, we will not ⁇ the 2020 targets until we have agreed on them. I don’t want to impose goals that are inaccessible, I don’t want to indicate goals without providing the concrete way to ⁇ them. This is the challenge of tomorrow, this is the challenge of Bali. Belgium must set itself goals, but it must above all ⁇ them. This is now done at the level of the Walloon Region, in consultation with all the actors.

In this way, we will have ambitious goals that will be possible to meet. And that’s what people expect from us.

A lot has already been said by other colleagues. I think most of the presentations have clearly demonstrated the importance of the theme in Parliament.

I would like to remind you of the goal of Bali. I think that colleague Avontroodt also described this very well. After all, it is intended to establish a time frame with the agenda, the end date and organizational and procedural arrangements. This is a first, very important step, because we know too well that if it does not end well, it can also affect the final result.

A lot has been said about the work here today. However, I would like to reply again to Mrs. Van der Straeten, who pointed out CD&V’s responsibilities. Mr. Van der Straeten knows too well that we have submitted 16 amendments. These amendments have often reinforced and strengthened the resolution.

It is true that we did not want to go into point 5bis, the article that today actually wants to impose unilateral, Belgian objectives. Like colleagues from cdH, MR and Open Vld, we want to join the European targets: the three-fold 20% and a reduction of CO2 emissions to 30%, if the other industrialized countries follow.

Why do we not want to do that? I give two arguments. Initially, it is too early today to do so. Today there is a debate on the European level where the possibility is very real that we will control 45% of our emissions at European level by the end of January. These include the electricity industry, the glass and metal industry. Let us hope that decision will be made. I see you knocking, Mr. Minister, and you know too well that that decision is necessary, we want to get effective results in Europe. At the end of January, 45% of our emissions will be regulated at European level. The rest, still 55%, is mainly matter of the Regents.

But, colleagues, that – I will not conduct the substantive debate here – is not on the Bali agenda. The time frame is on the table. Let us hope that ministers Tobback and Huytebroeck, who are going to Bali, succeed in establishing the time frame with other European countries. I am convinced – I have seen a lot of political will here – that we will take a first step in Bali over the coming months and years on that debate. I think we still have a lot of substantive comments on this subject at a later time.

Collega Muylle, how credible is CD&V in this area? You are referring to the revision of the EU/ETS Directive, the first proposal of which will come from the European Commission on 23 January and which will cover the period after 2008. So far, however, no new national allocation plan has been submitted by the Belgian government. It is the regions that have the greatest responsibility there, especially Flanders. The European Commission has reversed the national allocation plan and no new allocation plan has been submitted so far.

You know too well – it was still read in the newspapers this week – that from Flanders we have always had a Flemish climate plan. People who have followed our opposition work in recent years – sorry, Mr. Minister! – knowing that we have always been heavily criticized for the fact that there was no national allocation plan. But, Mrs. Van der Straeten, I am not in a purple government today and I was not responsible for a national allocation plan.

It is the Flemish government and the Flemish industry (...)

Mr. Speaker, apart from political considerations, I would like to communicate to Mrs. Muylle in practice that the national allocation plan, which we submit to the European Commission, is the merger of the various regional allocation plans. Since it has been returned, the main trouble is indeed that at the regional level one is not very willing to submit the first submitted allocation plans. We can still play pingpong for a very long time, but the objective thing is that you can’t get rid of it by saying it’s a national allocation plan. This is not true in terms of content.

For the rest, I would like to thank almost everyone, because they have met for three weeks to eventually support something that we had done ourselves. I would like to thank Parliament for its confidence. We will try to carry out that responsibility with great enthusiasm in Bali. I hope for the future – for all clarity, I speak now as a member of Parliament – that the future Belgian government, whenever that future may be, will demonstrate a minimum of ambition to continue playing a leading role in Europe rather than becoming a brake.

We conclude the first round of speeches in the discussion of this resolution. We had planned a second round and I have a registered speaker, Mrs. Snoy and d’Oppuers. I urge the speakers of this second round to defend their amendments. I have seven amendments that come mainly from the Ecolo-Groen group! Some of them are signed by Mr. by Major. I therefore ask the speakers to comment on their amendments so that we do not have to make a third round.

I would like to thank you for giving me the word. I will try to improve the process. It would be a shame that after all this work in the committee, we would always end up with this tiny resolution that only refers to a text whose status we have not yet understood.

Is it not time for Parliament to demonstrate to the citizen that it is working on real issues, that it takes into account the risks to our economy, to our environment and to our entire society in the short and medium term?

We submitted a very broad resolution. We said enough of what was left. To try to get out of the top of all this, we have submitted a series of amendments. I’m not going to defend them all, because others than me have deposited them.

The first amendment would propose to replace the current resolution with a text that summarizes the commitments the House of Representatives wants the Belgian government to take in Bali.

The second amendment would like to recall the ambitious objectives our group proposes to adopt. This amendment is also supported by the Socialist family. These ambitious targets must concern the whole of Europe but also Belgium. Therefore, we reintroduce an amendment that is identical to the 5bis amendment we introduced in the previous resolution.

As far as I am concerned, my intervention is centered on other aspects of the resolution that I would not want to be completely forgotten because it is about giving a little body and heart to our work.

I would also like to emphasize the role that our country must play and its responsibility towards all the countries of the South. If we look at our ecological footprint, our CO2 emissions are largely due to our consumption of energy and natural resources from Southern countries. So we have an ecological debt and we must now take responsibility for it by supporting sustainable and sustainable modes of production in the South.

I would like to draw your attention to the issue of biofuels. You know that since the announcement of the European goal of supplying 10% of the fuel needs with agrofuels, some Southern countries have invested enormously in intensive monoculture at the expense of food crops, social rights and even human rights, with additional negative consequences on the environment, forests and biodiversity.

There is a strong pressure generally on raw materials, on primary resources. This affects agriculture, livestock farming and the production of energy crops. We believe that it is the responsibility of European countries to respect the allocation of biomass resources in the Southern countries. These must be allocated as a priority to basic nutritional needs. It would be inconsistent that the import of renewable energy, replacing the import of fossil energy, leads to effects completely contrary to the desired reduction of CO2 emissions and has negative effects on peasant populations.

We have received here, in parliament, people from Colombia and Brazil. We mentioned the Indonesian case. We can only continue to import renewable energy fuels if we can guarantee that they are produced sustainably and without ruining people.

I would also like to draw your attention – this is also the subject of one of the amendments – on deforestation issues. by Mr. Wathelet cited the CDH’s concern about forests. I don’t understand why we couldn’t discuss this at the meeting. I regret it!

Deforestation contributes to 20% of global CO2 emissions. In one of our amendments, we propose to set up mechanisms within a post-Kyoto agreement that are incentive enough to stop degradation of forests.

We would like the risks associated with deforestation to be taken into account more systematically in the procedures for granting development aid. To apply this principle to our country, I propose that it be stated that we want Belgium to be ⁇ concerned with the persistent risks of destruction of the forest masses in the Congo, in reference to the Brussels Declaration on the sustainable management of the Congo forests. This declaration dates from 27 February 2007 and supported the establishment of sustainable management modes of the Congolese forest basins.

We also demand that imported wood – but this is harder and more demanding – come from sustainably managed forests. Unfortunately, we know that is not the case today. There is a huge amount of imported timber exploited illegally.

There are two other amendments.

One concerns air transport. Parliament welcomes the European Parliament’s decision of 13 November 2011 to incorporate air and maritime emissions from 2011 into international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions after 2012 and calls for further efforts to ⁇ EU and global kerosene taxation. In fact, it seems to us that all sectors emitting greenhouse gases must be included in the emission trading system and must contribute in their own way to the reduction of emissions.

The other amendment concerns the accessibility of energy which must remain possible for all. Social measures should be taken to ensure that low-income people have sufficient access to renewable energy, low-carbon mobility and investments to reduce energy consumption and improve energy efficiency.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are the amendments we wish to introduce so that, on the one hand, the work of our committee and, on the other hand, the discussions of this plenary session do not lead to anything at all, with half a page referring to a text whose status we have not yet understood – if it has been distributed. It appears clearly that this is a minutes of a meeting which cites the European position and some comments from Belgium. This is not at all a finalised text that represents a Belgian position.

Our group proposes that we abandon this unfortunate little paragraph proposed by the blue orange and reconstruct this resolution so that it again has a content that has body and heart!

Congratulations to Mrs. Snoy for her maidenspeech. (Applause of Applause)